Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Kephart v. Continental Casualty Co.

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 23, 1908PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from District Court, Wells County; Burke, J. Action by Mary Kephart against the Continental Casualty Company. From a judgment for plaintiff and an order denying a new-trial, defendant appeals. In the absence of a statute a policy may limit the time for suit: thereon. Kiisel v. Mutual Reserve Life Ins.

Read the full summary

Appeal from District Court, Wells County; Burke, J. Action by Mary Kephart against the Continental Casualty Company. From a judgment for plaintiff and an order denying a new-trial, defendant appeals. In the absence of a statute a policy may limit the time for suit: thereon. Kiisel v. Mutual Reserve Life Ins. Co., 107 N. W. 1037;: 38 Cent". Digest, see Insurance 1545. Contract is 'completed at the place and when the proposals of one party are accepted by the other. 1 May on Ins. (4th Ed.) section 43, 66; Marden v. Hotel Owners Ins. Co., 53 N. W. 509. Where a policy is riot binding until…

1ConcurrenceSpalding, J.

(concurring specially.) I concur in the result, but express no opinion as to the necessity of alleging and proving the law of Illinois. In view <jf the conclusion that the law of this state governs, I see no necessity for passing on the effect of failure to allege or prove the law of that state.

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Kephart v. Continental Casualty Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1908

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API